The federal government’s merit-based hiring system is intended to identify, assess and select qualified applicants based on competence, job-related qualifications and public-service capability. In that system, veterans’ preference is not an exception to merit. It is part of merit. Congress created veterans’ preference to recognize military service, sacrifice, disability incurred through service, and the practical leadership value that veterans bring to public institutions. Therefore, when federal human resources offices and hiring managers fail to properly understand, apply, document or respect veterans’ preference, the issue is not merely administrative error. It is a failure to follow a statutory requirement that Congress embedded into the federal civil service system.
This issue is especially important in the current Office of Personnel Management merit-based hiring environment. OPM’s Merit Hiring Plan emphasizes improving recruitment, strengthening assessments, reducing time-to-hire, and hiring the most capable applicants at scale. The plan is intended to improve the quality, speed, fairness and credibility of federal hiring. However, a merit-based hiring system cannot be credible if statutory veterans’ preference is treated as optional, misunderstood as a courtesy, or bypassed through poor certificate management. OPM’s own guidance makes clear that veterans’ preference must be applied during the rating process and used to determine the order of referral on certificates of eligibles. It also states that preference-eligible candidates must receive their due preference when agencies rank, select, and pass over candidates.
From my perspective as a retired Command Sergeant Major, former National Guard Bureau program manager, former Office of the Secretary of Defense management and program analyst, and current Agriculture Department TARGET Center director, the problem is not that the federal government lacks rules. The problem is that the hiring enterprise often lacks consistent accountability, practical training, and leadership discipline in applying those rules. I have spent my career building readiness systems, leading large organizations, managing federal programs, implementing process improvements, and translating policy into operational execution. In the Army, statutory and regulatory requirements were not abstract suggestions. They were requirements that shaped how leaders planned, documented, resourced and made decisions. The same discipline should apply in federal hiring.
Veterans’ preference is often misunderstood by both applicants and hiring officials. It does not guarantee a job. It does not eliminate the requirement to be qualified. It does not apply to every hiring action, such as most internal promotions, transfers, reassignments or reinstatements. OPM explains that veterans’ preference gives eligible veterans preference in appointment over many other applicants, applies to all new appointments in the competitive service and many in the excepted service, but does not guarantee selection. That distinction matters. Veterans are not asking the government to ignore qualifications. They are asking the government to follow the law after qualifications have been established.
The statutory requirement begins with eligibility. Under federal law and OPM implementing guidance, preference eligibility depends on specific service conditions, campaign or expeditionary service, disability status, receipt of a Purple Heart or other qualifying criteria. Applicants claiming 10-point preference must submit required documentation, including Standard Form 15 and supporting evidence. Once the applicant is found qualified and preference eligibility is verified, the agency must apply the preference properly. This is where many practical failures occur.
One common failure is reducing veterans’ preference to a mechanical point system without understanding the legal effect of disabled-veteran preference. For many applicants, preference is commonly discussed as five-point or 10-point preference. That description is accurate but incomplete. The most significant statutory protection applies to qualified preference eligibles with compensable service-connected disabilities. OPM’s 2025 final rule discussion stated that only qualified preference eligibles with a compensable service-connected disability of at least 10% are moved to the top of a certificate, regardless of rating or other qualifications, subject to legal exceptions. This means the law does not merely add a symbolic advantage. It changes the order in which eligible, qualified applicants are referred and considered.
This is especially important for service-disabled veterans. Veterans with a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more have one of the strongest forms of statutory protection in federal hiring. Agencies may also use the 30% or More Disabled Veteran appointing authority, which allows eligible veterans to be appointed noncompetitively to positions for which they meet qualification requirements, with no grade-level limitation under that authority. This authority is separate from veterans’ preference, but both reflect the same public-policy judgment: Service-disabled veterans deserve meaningful access to federal employment when they are qualified to perform the work.
The current OPM merit-hiring framework does not repeal or weaken veterans’ preference. Instead, it requires agencies to integrate veterans’ preference into more rigorous assessment and ranking procedures. OPM’s Rule of Many guidance explains that applicants are assigned scores, those scores are augmented for veterans’ preference, and applicants are placed in rank order. Agencies then make selections from a predetermined number of the highest-ranked qualified candidates. This is important because some hiring managers may mistakenly believe that a new merit-based hiring model gives them broader discretion to select whoever they prefer after interviews. That view is incomplete. Merit-based hiring gives agencies better tools to assess candidates, but it does not give agencies permission to ignore statutory preference.
The failure point often appears between HR certificate issuance and hiring-manager selection. HR may issue a certificate without fully explaining the legal meaning of preference order, disabled-veteran placement, pass-over rules or documentation requirements. Hiring managers may view the certificate as a list of names rather than a legally structured hiring instrument. When that happens, the hiring process can become vulnerable to informal preference, familiarity bias, internal candidate favoritism, or subjective interview impressions that override statutory protections. This is not always intentional misconduct. In many cases, it is the result of insufficient training. But the effect is the same: The federal government risks violating the rights of qualified veterans and undermining public trust in merit hiring.
The pass-over requirement is another area where agencies must exercise greater discipline. Veterans’ preference is meaningful only if agencies cannot casually bypass preference eligibles without documented justification. OPM’s Rule of Many and veterans’ preference fact sheet states that preference-eligible candidates must be granted their due preference when ranking, selecting and passing over candidates. For service-disabled veterans, especially those with higher disability ratings, pass-over protections are not merely internal HR steps. They are part of the statutory framework that prevents agencies from selecting non-preference candidates ahead of protected veterans without proper legal justification.
From a leadership standpoint, the federal government should treat veterans’ preference as a compliance, accountability and performance issue. During my time leading Army organizations, managing the ARNG Distributed Learning Program, supporting OSD performance improvement and directing USDA’s TARGET Center, I learned that policy fails when it is not translated into repeatable systems. Leaders cannot assume that written policy produces compliant outcomes. They must build processes, dashboards, training, quality-control reviews and documented decision points. The same approach is needed in federal hiring.
First, agencies should require annual HR and hiring manager training on veterans’ preference, disabled veteran preference, certificate order, pass-over requirements and special hiring authorities. This training should not be a generic slide deck. It should use real hiring scenarios that show how veterans’ preference applies under competitive examining, category rating, Rule of Many, excepted service hiring, direct hire, merit promotion, Veterans Recruitment Appointment (VRA) and 30% or More Disabled Veteran authority.
Second, agencies should build certificate-review controls before selections are finalized. A hiring manager should not be able to select a non-preference candidate over a qualified preference eligible without a documented review by HR, legal counsel when appropriate, and an approving official who understands the statutory requirement. The point is not to slow hiring; the point is to prevent unlawful or procedurally defective hiring decisions.
Third, agencies should measure veterans’ preference outcomes. A modern merit-hiring system should have data visibility. Agencies should track the number of preference eligibles who apply, qualify, are referred, are interviewed, are selected and are passed over. They should separately track service-disabled veterans, including 10-point preference categories and 30% or More Disabled-Veteran authority usage. These metrics should not become quotas. They should serve as compliance indicators, much like financial controls, acquisition milestones, or performance-management dashboards.
Fourth, agencies should better educate hiring managers on the value of veteran experience. Many hiring officials do not fully understand how military experience translates into federal qualifications. A senior non-commissioned officer (NCO) may have led hundreds or thousands of personnel, managed readiness systems, coordinated logistics, executed training programs, handled inspections, advised senior leaders and managed risk in complex environments. Yet that experience is sometimes undervalued because it does not mirror civilian position titles. My own transition from Command Sergeant Major to federal program manager, OSD analyst, and USDA director demonstrates that senior military leadership can translate directly into civil service performance. Veterans’ preference exists partly because Congress recognized that federal agencies benefit from the discipline, accountability, resilience, and mission focus that military service develops.
Fifth, agencies should use special hiring authorities more intentionally. VRA authority allows eligible veterans to be appointed noncompetitively up to GS-11 or equivalent, with potential conversion after two years of satisfactory service. The 30% or More Disabled Veteran authority provides another pathway for agencies to hire qualified disabled veterans. These authorities should not be viewed as administrative burdens. They should be strategic workforce tools, especially in mission-critical occupations where agencies need mature judgment, operational discipline, leadership and public-service commitment.
An apolitical approach to this issue is essential. Veterans’ preference is not a partisan program. It is not a diversity initiative. It is not a political favor. It is a statutory recognition of service and sacrifice, enacted by Congress and embedded into the federal merit system. Regardless of administration, agency, ideology or policy agenda, the rule of law requires federal hiring officials to apply veterans’ preference correctly. A government that claims to value merit must also value legal compliance. A hiring system that claims to reward competence must not disregard veterans who have already demonstrated competence under demanding conditions.
The new merit-based hiring environment creates an opportunity to fix long-standing weaknesses. Skills-based assessments, stronger ranking methods, better applicant screening, and reduced time-to-hire can improve federal hiring. But these reforms must be implemented with veterans’ preference built into the design, not treated as an afterthought. If agencies modernize hiring without strengthening veterans’ preference compliance, they risk creating a faster system that still produces legally flawed or inequitable outcomes.
The solution is leadership. HR offices must become guardians of statutory hiring integrity. Hiring managers must understand that selection discretion exists within legal boundaries. Senior executives must demand data, training and accountability. Veterans must submit complete documentation and clearly translate their experience. OPM must continue issuing practical guidance and agencies must operationalize it at the certificate level.
In conclusion, veterans’ preference is not a loophole in merit hiring. It is one of the legal pillars of the federal merit system. Service-disabled veterans, in particular, have earned statutory protections that agencies must honor with precision, transparency and accountability. The federal government cannot credibly claim to be advancing merit-based hiring while allowing HR offices or hiring managers to misunderstand, minimize or bypass veterans’ preference. The answer is not to weaken merit. The answer is to enforce merit completely, including the statutory preference Congress created for veterans who served, sacrificed, and remain ready to serve the nation in civilian capacity.
Sergio Porras is a retired U.S. Army Command Sergeant Major and is director of the TARGET Center at the Agriculture Department.
Copyright
© 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
